Posted on 05/30/2003 11:43:43 PM PDT by Theosis
In the past week or two, even some of the most hardened traditionalists I know have complained about SSPX Bishop Williamson's latest monthly letter, in which he appears to take a very firm stand against the possibility of an SSPX reconciliation. Here's an excerpt:
Even if these Romans were to speak exactly the same language as the SSPX still, by their modernist religion, they would not be meaninq the same things. Therefore the "reconciliation" would be verbal, not real, and the SSPX would have lost the protection of its present marginalization.
This does not appear to be much different than his various negative comments about the Campos reconciliation. Williamson, as everyone knows, is from England and was raised (at least nominally) as an Anglican. Reportedly, he briefly passed through the Catholic Church on his way to the SSPX schism. He know runs the SSPX's American seminary, and his influence within North America appears to be quite strong.
On the other end of the spectrum, (which is surprising given his past reputation as a SSPX hardliner) L'Abbe Paul Aulagnier from France is now making some pretty strong statements in favor of reconciliation. To share a little of his background, he was one of the SSPX's first priests and has held the offices of District Superior of France (which if I understand correctly is sort of the position of "first among equals" when it comes to SSPX District Superiorships), District Superior of Belgium and Second Assistant to the Superior General. Here's a loose translation of an excerpt from a recent interview he gave ITEM, in which he tackles these same topics:
I am very happy with the positive reaction of Bishop Fellay. "The negotiations continue," he said, "they are not dead." This is something good. I am always very favorable towards these contacts with Rome. We cannot "separate" from Rome, "forget" Rome.
Thus the best thing is to keep things, it is to keep these contacts frequent. Otherwise our "battle" would lose its reason of being. Our goal, over and above the salvation of souls, is to see our Apostolic Tradition rekindle in Rome -- and from Rome to the entire Church.
All isolation is dangerous, and ours in particular.
If we were not to turn toward Rome, we could in time create "a little Church". [Basically a non-Catholic Church like the Old Catholics - PJV]
Then the schism would be consummated well and good. This is our danger. This is why I am happy about Bishop Fellay.
This is also why I'm happy with the "agreement" that Bishop Rangel worked to bring to a successful conclusion with Rome by creating a personal apostolic administration with an exclusive right to the Tridentine liturgy. I hope we will get there ourselves as well.
Granted, my translation isn't perfect, but you get the gist of what Fr. Aulagnier is saying. Despite couching his comments behind appeals to Bishop Fellay's recent comments, it has taken him great courage to state what he has stated in public. (Which is why I'm not gonna quibble with him over whether the SSPX is headed towards schism or already there -- suffice to say, it appears that we both agree the SSPX will end up there permanently in the future if negotiations and contacts aren't intensified.) My heart and prayers go out to Fr. Aulagnier and I pray he will be successful in urging the SSPX toward reconciliation.
Unfortunately, my head tells me that most SSPX clergy still stand behind Williamson, and that he will likely win out if we don't see a massive change of heart among these same clergy. My pessimism is further amplified by the fact Fr. Aulagnier was recently transfered to North America. This is not good in my opinion. I have always found the SSPX quite euro-centric and thus I would not venture to guess that this transfer to North America was a promotion -- especially as Aulagnier is now in the heart of Williamson's sphere of influence.
Which only raises the following question: whose side Bishop Fellay is really taking behind the scenes? In other words, if Bishop Fellay is really in favor reconciliation, why would he transfer the SSPX's most outspoken and well-respected reconciliarist ourside of his reported sphere influence after he appeared to break with the party line, when no action appears to have been taken against Bishop Williamson -- who appears to be the SSPX's most outspoken opponent to reconcilation?
This gives the appearance of a double-standard and sends a strong message to the outside world that Williamson's ideological influence has won out within the SSPX. In my opinion, traditionalists on both sides need to watch the SSPX's treatment of Fr. Aulagnier carefully, because it likely will be the litmus test of how serious the SSPX is in approaching negotiations. Those like myself at St. Blog who favor reconciliation need to make a strong statement in support of Aulagnier right now.
Good, at least we agree that his writings acknowlege what we all know to be serious conflicts with the faith.
...Sacred Hosts swigged down with beer by bikers...
Well, I will commend you for acquiring a new list of shocking scenes. The "usual" had become tedious. But I have to admit that the beer-swilling bikers comes across as cartoonish in a sterotypical way. Got a source for that one?
His behavior has certainly been that of a progressivist, not of a traditionalist, however you try to spin the truth. Nothing like his actions have ever occurred in the entire history of the Catholic Church.
Where do you get that stuff? What history do you read or are familiar with?. Are you on a strict diet of hagiographies along with the ivory tower theologians you read only to ridicule? Catholics have been disobeying the pope and living unChristian lives since Peter. Probably 80 % of the popes don't come close to comparing with JPII's avoidance of personal scandal. Probably 100% had to deal with every variety of heresy, including the donatism you wallow in. Your romanticized view of the past is incredible to behold. If you don't like that the pope does nothing, fine, you will be relieved to learn that he is following tradition.
I'll buy that because I am very reassured by the Church. With daily uncertainty in business and personal relationships, I find tremendous comfort in the One Holy Roman Catholic Church. I adore it enormously. While you like to think everything has changed, I know that it is still Christ's Bride and my Mother and Teacher and nothing about that will ever change. The essential things never do.
Here again is Cardinal Ratzinger: "[We] can no longer imagine that human fault can wound God, and still less that it would require an expiation equal to that which constitutes the cross of Christ."
Interestingly enough, I have heard that preached from the pulpit. God is so omnipotent, awesome, so powerful, how could little creatures like us hurt him, cause Him offense. I wouldn't mind you explaining in depth what you find objectionable about that sentiment, but I reacted the same way you did. I immediately recognized the contradiction with the Act of Contrition. My thinking is that because of His Boundless Love we offend him. His love for us is every bit as stupendous as His eternity. I think that is about the time I started attending the indult regularly. At the time I didn't know that Cardinal Ratzinger, whom I respect, was responsible for that idea, but I have never read it in context so there may be more to it than what you quote and the even drippier version I heard. In fact, because you use it, I suspect it is more orthodox than I thought.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.